Minister, as you know, many of those do get accepted as refugees. Let's even take the example of Hungary: 160 asylum seekers from Hungary were accepted as legitimate refugees.

Let me give you this example. A pregnant woman fleeing legitimate persecution goes to see her doctor. She's here as an asylum seeker. Unfortunately, her country of origin is likely to be on the designated safe list. She is then informed that she would have no prenatal and no birth coverage as of June 30 if this list is announced. She ponders whether she should have an abortion now, because she cannot imagine going through a pregnancy without basic health care.

How do you feel about putting a woman in a situation where they have to choose—

I have to be hypothetical at this stage, because the bill hasn't been enacted yet. But under the new legislation, women could be put in this situation, or men and women could be put in situations where they have dire health care needs, and they will be denied services.

What happens to a woman if she is pregnant, and she needs the prenatal health care to have a safe delivery of her baby, and she is still considered an asylum seeker? She doesn't quite have the designation of a refugee yet.

With respect, again, to asylum claimants coming from designated safe countries, let's put this in perspective. In 2010, for example, we received, to be precise, 2,298 asylum claims from Hungary, 22 of which were deemed positive. That's less than 1%. And 2010 is one example. Over 99% of the claims from that country were abandoned, withdrawn, or rejected.

Now, I would point out that under the new, faster system we are adopting, hopefully, through Bill C-31, asylum claims coming from designated countries will be dealt with within 45 days. That's about six weeks' time.

I would suggest to anyone coming from Hungary, let's say, to Canada, whether they're a visitor or whatever their category is, that they should ensure that they come here with health insurance. They have health coverage in their country of origin. They have full mobility within the European Union, which is a full-service collection of welfare states. And I would submit that it is not an obligation of Canadian taxpayers to finance comprehensive health care for visitors from the European Union, including the 99% of asylum claimants who end up being rejected.

What will be happening is that legitimate asylum seekers, while they're waiting for their forms to be processed, are going to be denied health care. And they are legitimate, both under the UN conventions and under humanitarian and compassionate grounds as accepted by us.

I would point out that we receive millions of visitors from around the world every year. They do not come here with an expectation of having, and we have no obligation to furnish them with, comprehensive health care. We will provide comprehensive health care to people who are deemed refugees by our system. The only people who will not get comprehensive health care, in terms of asylum claimants, are those coming from designated countries. I just gave you an example of one where 99% of the claimants from that country did not need our protection in 2010.

By the way, this is about ending the abuse of our generosity, and I think we should show some concern, as well, for the limited means of Canadian taxpayers.

I'm sure that the minister or members of his staff might be familiar with the organization known as Lost Canadians. My first question is related to that.

Has any part of the operating budget been allocated to deal with the issue of individuals who deserve Canadian citizenship but did not receive it under the flawed Bill C-37? And is the minister looking at any specific solution to this issue?

First of all, I don't accept the premise of your question. I don't think it was flawed. We did manage to restore citizenship to, we estimate, 95% of those who inadvertently lost it as a result of changes to the Citizenship Act, which is something the previous Liberal governments never did. Nevertheless, we have added additional resources to process applications for what are called subsection 5(4) grants of citizenship. I don't know how much we've added to that.

We'll get back to you on the exact number. We have added resources. The number of subsection 5(4) grants we've been approving through my recommendation to cabinet has gone up very substantially, from a few a year to several dozen a year.

I wonder if the minister can provide my office with a list of those health care services under his new system that refugees—I'm thinking of refugees from the continent of Africa, as an example—would not be able to receive. And can you correlate that to those same health care services the average Canadian on social assistance...?

Having said that, the biggest concern that I have with this particular budget is related to something the minister spent a great deal of time on, and that is the whole issue of the federal skilled worker program. I've addressed this issue inside the House of Commons in the forum of question period, believing that the minister is wrong to delete the applications. I think it's a serious mistake. This committee needs to be aware of that mistake, and it's something that should be debated, Mr. Chairperson.

What I'm going to do at this time is propose a motion. I would move that the committee request that the finances to be allocated for the refund of pre-February 27, 2008 federal skilled worker applications, as outlined in Bill C-38, not be expended and that those applications continue to be processed.

I have copies in both English and French I could provide the committee members with.

Do you want to debate that and take up the rest of the time? That's the risk you run.

We can debate it for the rest of your time, and if we haven't finished we'll have to vote on it another time. Or if we have time, we'll vote on it. I'm not going to stop this meeting just to take up that motion.

So you can explain your motion and we'll see if there's debate, Mr. Lamoureux.